Moves a specified project item into a target bin to reorganize Premiere Pro project media.
Moves a project item into a different bin (folder).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targetBinId | Yes | The ID of the destination bin | |
| projectItemId | Yes | The ID of the project item to move |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, whether it validates the target bin, or what side effects (e.g., changes to item metadata) might occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of a single-item move, the description is minimal but lacks important context such as what happens if the target bin is invalid, whether the move is undoable, or how it differs from the plural variant. It does not compensate for missing annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, as it only repeats the concept of moving to a bin.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action (move) and the resource (project item) and the target (bin). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'move_items_to_bin' (plural) and 'move_clip' tools, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_items_to_bin' or 'move_clip'. No context about prerequisites or scenarios is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.